, 1887-04-27
To the Editor Of the est. CrOi@ AU's'
Dear Sir,

In reply to YOUR issue Of % April, l would
bsg to say that, perhaps the intrinsic nature
of the subject on which | have been treating
has not vet been explained to the entlre
satisfaction of every one in this community
nor indeed do I hope for such general sue
cess, being aware of the fact, that there are
a few who would pretend from Interested
motives to misunderstood the mos1 luclo
explanation that could be given, even by the
ablest pen in Christendom.
have paid due regard to the remarks
in YOUR editorial, which will have the merlteo
attention after having made q lew remark"
to your correspondents ("
"C',I also have heard that anything IS
better than nothing, but there IS an exception
to every general rule, which seems to be verl-
fedin this stuff Of yours; Of which would
say that even nothing would be better than
such an absurd, ridiculous and puerlle any
thing as your production, which puts me III
mind of q man with'a lisp on his tongue or
an imDediment in his speech, who under a
state Of excitement, gasps, catches, endeaVourS,
and finally emits some incompreheAslble souhq
like the babble of a babe, apoorSpee1men lhdeeo
to face u Lion. When, however, you become
capable of expressing something IKE d Iea-
ture of d sentiment you shall be honoured
with attention, if it be to the point at issue:
And now Mr.. Editor, you possess a doclded
knowledge of the decorum due to a gentle
man, | propose presently to conhne my at
tention to your remarks, | have sometimes
found it expedient to create some interest
and attention before coming exactly to the
point, and, presuming, we are at a more ap-
nroDriate ~iuncture, ] enter more mlnutely IN
to the details.
did speak in my first letter of an extern.
sion Of rum licenses with a direct view OF
establishing more sources Of livelihood, which
extension. I thin could be granted at the
expiration Of the present term, and IN strict
accordance with the now existing ordinance,
only with an a~mendmeLt necessary for the
extension.
You then suggested that such a change
might be prolific of an increase Of lnebrlety'
with which I disagreed, and do yet disagree;
but to prove that l had no desire to see such
results, [ then suggested that were it protfita-
BILE to continue with the same number upon
s~ucheconvictions that they should then be put
up for licitation at the expiration of the pre-
sent term; were this decided upon nothing
could be easier than to set them up and be
given to the highest bidder over $500 each pa.
provided shat those who bid highest possess
ed the necessary qualifications in accordance
with the Ordinance, under the reservation
that one individual shall not obtain more than
one license &C., &C., at which time shonld
anything be lacking in the arrangement, the
press, which was established as a method OF
developing the ideas of members Of the Colo
NAL Council (which can be seen by the Coun-
CLIPS discussions Of that time) will be resorted
to.
AS this j%uncture I also assert chat it seems
not to be the meaning of the Law that the
licenses shall continue in possession of one
individual set, 8-Rum Ordinance says that
at the expiration of the stipulated term the
licenses may be renewed, and continues by
saying that any person wishing to obtain
such a license shall petition &C., &c.
Upon the very basis of the Law then, 1
expect a change at the expiration of the pre-
sent term, and therefore suggest the above
mentioned plans, as it would be inconsistent
with Justice to return them as hitherto again
in possession of the present holders when
others claim an equal right. This inherent pri-
vilege seems then TO be based simply onprece-
dent, which must succumb in the presence
Of a q pJositiv9e Law. And yet it may
be said that it would not be fair to take them
from the present holders and give them to
others; this certainly I would not have, but
dispensing of them as suggested I hold TO be
Justice to one and all.